Long-Acting Injectable Antiretrovirals for HIV Treatment: A Multi-Site Qualitative Study of Clinic-Level Barriers to Implementation in the United States.

Long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy (LAI ART) has the potential to address adherence obstacles associated with daily oral ART, leading to enhanced treatment uptake, adherence, and viral suppression among people living with HIV (PLWH). Yet, its potential may be limited due to ongoing disparities in availability and accessibility. We need a better understanding of the organizational context surrounding the implementation of LAI ART, and to inform its widespread rollout, we conducted 38 in-depth interviews with medical and social service providers who offer HIV care at private and hospital-based clinics across six US cities. Our findings highlight real-world implementation barriers outside of clinical trial settings. Providers described ongoing and anticipated barriers across three stages of LAI ART implementation: (1) Patient enrollment (challenges registering patients and limited insurance coverage), (2) medication delivery (insufficient personnel and resources), and (3) leadership and management (lack of interprofessional coordination and a lack of programming guidelines). Providers described how these barriers would have a disproportionate impact on under-resourced clinics, potentially exacerbating existing disparities in LAI ART access and adherence. Our findings suggest strategies that clinic leadership, policymakers, and other stakeholders can pursue to promote rapid and equitable LAI ART implementation in clinics across the United States. Resource and staffing investments could support clinics to begin, sustain, and scale up LAI ART delivery; additionally, the establishment of guidelines and tools could facilitate wider adoption of LAI ART across clinical settings. These efforts are crucial to promote resourced, standardized, and equitable implementation of LAI ART and maximize its potential to help end the HIV epidemic.

Eliciting preferences for cancer screening tests: Comparison of a discrete choice experiment and the threshold technique.

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of three preference elicitation methods for a cancer screening test. METHODS: Participants (undergraduate students) completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) task. Accuracy (false positives, false negatives), benefits (lives saved), and cost for a cancer screening test were used as attributes in the DCE and branching logic for the TT. Participants were also asked a direct elicitation question regarding a hypothetical screening test for breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer without mortality benefit. Correlations assessed the relationship between DCE and TT thresholds. Thresholds were standardized and ranked for both methods to compare. A logistic regression used the thresholds to predict results of the direct elicitation. RESULTS: DCE and TT estimates were not meaningfully correlated (max ρ = 0.17). Participant rankings of attributes matched only 20% of the time (58/292). Neither method predicted preference for being screened (ps > 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The DCE and TT yielded different preference estimates (and rank orderings) for the same participant. Neither method predicted patients' desires for a screening test. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians, patients, policy makers, and researchers should be aware that patient preference results may be sensitive to the method of eliciting preferences.

A Patient Decision Aid (i.ARTs) to Facilitate Women's Choice Between Oral and Long-Acting Injectable Antiretroviral Treatment for HIV: Protocols for its Development and Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many women with HIV (WWH) have suboptimal adherence to oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) due to multilevel barriers to HIV care access and retention. A long-acting injectable (LAI) version of ART was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 and has the potential to overcome many of these barriers by eliminating the need for daily pill taking. However, it may not be optimal for all WWH. It is critical to develop tools that facilitate patient-provider shared decision making about oral versus LAI ART modalities to promote women's adherence and long-term HIV outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study will develop and pilot test a web-based patient decision aid called i.ART+support (i.ARTs). This decision aid aims to support shared decision making between WWH and their providers, and help women choose between oral and LAI HIV treatment. METHODS: The study will occur in 3 phases. In phase 1, we will utilize a mixed methods approach to collect data from WWH and medical and social service providers to inform i.ARTs content. During phase 2, we will conduct focus groups with WWH and providers to refine i.ARTs content and develop the web-based decision aid. In phase 3, i.ARTs will be tested in a randomized controlled trial with 180 women in Miami, Florida, and assessed for feasibility, usability, and acceptability, as well as to evaluate the associations between receiving i.ARTs and viral suppression, ART pharmacy refills, and clinic attendance. RESULTS: This study was funded in March 2021. Columbia University's IRB approved the study protocols (approval number IRB-AAAT5314). Protocols for phase 1 interviews have been developed and interviews with service providers started in September 2021. We will apply for Clinicaltrials.gov registration prior to phase 3, which is when our first participant will be enrolled in the randomized controlled trial. This is anticipated to occur in April 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to develop a web-based patient decision aid to support WWH choices between oral and LAI ART. Its strengths include the incorporation of both patient and provider perspectives, a mixed methods design, and implementation in a real-world clinical setting. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35646.

Patient judgments about hypertension control: the role of patient numeracy and graph literacy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of patient health literacy, numeracy, and graph literacy on perceptions of hypertension control using different forms of data visualization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (Internet sample of 1079 patients with hypertension) reviewed 12 brief vignettes describing a fictitious patient; each vignette included a graph of the patient's blood pressure (BP) data. We examined how variations in mean systolic blood pressure, BP standard deviation, and form of visualization (eg, data table, graph with raw values or smoothed values only) affected judgments about hypertension control and need for medication change. We also measured patient's health literacy, subjective and objective numeracy, and graph literacy. RESULTS: Judgments about hypertension data presented as a smoothed graph were significantly more positive (ie, hypertension deemed to be better controlled) then judgments about the same data presented as either a data table or an unsmoothed graph. Hypertension data viewed in tabular form was perceived more positively than graphs of the raw data. Data visualization had the greatest impact on participants with high graph literacy. DISCUSSION: Data visualization can direct patients to attend to more clinically meaningful information, thereby improving their judgments of hypertension control. However, patients with lower graph literacy may still have difficulty accessing important information from data visualizations. CONCLUSION: Addressing uncertainty inherent in the variability between BP measurements is an important consideration in visualization design. Well-designed data visualization could help to alleviate clinical uncertainty, one of the key drivers of clinical inertia and uncontrolled hypertension.

The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge.

PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force has changed their screening recommendations, encouraging informed patient choice and shared decision making as a result of emerging evidence. We aimed to compare the impact of a didactic intervention, a descriptive harms intervention, a narrative intervention, and a new risk communication strategy titled Aiding Risk Information learning through Simulated Experience (ARISE) on preferences for a hypothetical beneficial cancer screening test (one that reduces the chance of cancer death or extends life) versus a hypothetical screening test with no proven physical benefits. METHOD: A total of 3386 men and women aged 40 to 70 completed an online survey about prostate or breast cancer screening. Participants were randomly assigned to either an unbeneficial test condition (0 lives saved due to screening) or a beneficial test condition (1 life saved due to screening). Participants then reviewed 4 informational interventions about either breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer screening. First, participants were provided didactic information alongside an explicit recommendation. This was followed by a descriptive harms intervention in which the possible harms of overdetection were explained. Participants then viewed 2 additional interventions: a narrative and ARISE (an intervention in which participants learned about probabilities by viewing simulated outcomes). The order of these last 2 interventions was randomized. Preference for being screened with the test and knowledge about the test were measured. RESULTS: With each successive intervention, preferences for screening tests decreased an equivalent amount for both a beneficial and unbeneficial test. Knowledge about the screening tests was largely unimpacted by the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting detailed risk and benefit information, narratives, and ARISE reduced preferences for screening regardless of the net public benefit of screening.

Home blood pressure data visualization for the management of hypertension: using human factors and design principles.

BACKGROUND: Home blood pressure measurements have equal or even greater predictive value than clinic blood pressure measurements regarding cardiovascular outcomes. With advances in home blood pressure monitors, we face an imminent flood of home measurements, but current electronic health record systems lack the functionality to allow us to use this data to its fullest. We designed a data visualization display for blood pressure measurements to be used for shared decision making around hypertension. METHODS: We used an iterative, rapid-prototyping, user-centred design approach to determine the most appropriate designs for this data display. We relied on visual cognition and human factors principles when designing our display. Feedback was provided by expert members of our multidisciplinary research team and through a series of end-user focus groups, comprised of either hypertensive patients or their healthcare providers required from eight academic, community-based practices in the Midwest of the United States. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants were recruited to participate in patient (N = 16) and provider (N = 24) focus groups. We describe the conceptualization and development of data display for shared decision making around hypertension. We designed and received feedback from both patients and healthcare providers on a number of design elements that were reported to be helpful in understanding blood pressure measurements. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a data display for substantial amounts of blood pressure measurements that is both simple to understand for patients, but powerful enough to inform clinical decision making. The display used a line graph format for ease of understanding, a LOWESS function for smoothing data to reduce the weight users placed on outlier measurements, colored goal range bands to allow users to quickly determine if measurements were in range, a medication timeline to help link recorded blood pressure measurements with the medications a patient was taking. A data display such as this, specifically designed to encourage shared decision making between hypertensive patients and their healthcare providers, could help us overcome the clinical inertia that often results in a lack of treatment intensification, leading to better care for the 35 million Americans with uncontrolled hypertension.

Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards.

BACKGROUND: This article evaluates the evidence for the inclusion of patient narratives in patient decision aids (PtDAs). We define patient narratives as stories, testimonials, or anecdotes that provide illustrative examples of the experiences of others that are relevant to the decision at hand. METHOD: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of narratives in PtDAs, we conducted a narrative scoping review of the literature from January 2013 through June 2019 to identify relevant literature published since the last International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) update in 2013. We considered research articles that examined the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes or described relevant theoretical mechanisms. RESULTS: The majority of the empirical work on narratives did not measure concepts that are typically found in the PtDA literature (e.g., decisional conflict). Yet, a few themes emerged from our review that can be applied to the PtDA context, including the impact of narratives on relevant outcomes (knowledge, behavior change, and psychological constructs), as well as several theoretical mechanisms about how and why narratives work that can be applied to the PtDA context. CONCLUSION: Based on this evidence update, we suggest that there may be situations when narratives could enhance the effectiveness of PtDAs. The recent theoretical work on narratives has underscored the fact that narratives are a multifaceted construct and should no longer be considered a binary option (include narratives or not). However, the bottom line is that the evidence does not support a recommendation for narratives to be a necessary component of PtDAs.

Promoting Reflection on Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences May Create Undesired Effects on Decisions About Low-Benefit and High-Benefit Care.

BACKGROUND: Medical maximizing-minimizing (MM) preferences predict a variety of medical decisions. We tested whether informing people about their MM preferences and asking them to reflect on the pros and cons of that preference would improve medical decisions when clear clinical recommendations exist. METHODS: We surveyed 1219 US adults age 40+ that were sampled to ensure a 50%/50% distribution of medical maximizers versus minimizers. Participants either received no MM feedback (Control) or received feedback about their MM type and instructions to reflect on how that MM type can be helpful in some circumstances and problematic in others (Reflection). All participants then completed five hypothetical decision scenarios regarding low-value care services (e.g., head computed tomography scan for mild concussion) and three about high-value care (e.g., flu vaccination). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the Control and Reflection groups in five of eight scenarios. In three scenarios (two low-benefit and one high-benefit), we observed small effects in the nonhypothesized direction for the MM subgroup least likely to follow the recommendation (e.g., maximizers in the Reflection group were more likely to request low-benefit care). CONCLUSIONS: Asking people to reflect on their MM preferences may be a counterproductive strategy for optimizing patient decision making around quality of care.

Home blood pressure data visualization for the management of hypertension: designing for patient and physician information needs.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of US adults with diagnosed hypertension have uncontrolled blood pressure. Clinical inertia may contribute, including patient-physician uncertainty about how variability in blood pressures impacts overall control. Better information display may support clinician-patient hypertension decision making through reduced cognitive load and improved situational awareness. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team employed iterative user-centered design to create a blood pressure visualization EHR prototype that included patient-generated blood pressure data. An attitude and behavior survey and 10 focus groups with patients (N = 16) and physicians (N = 24) guided iterative design and confirmation phases. Thematic analysis of qualitative data yielded insights into patient and physician needs for hypertension management. RESULTS: Most patients indicated measuring home blood pressure, only half share data with physicians. When receiving home blood pressure data, 88% of physicians indicated entering gestalt averages as text into clinical notes. Qualitative findings suggest that including a data visualization that included home blood pressures brought this valued data into physician workflow and decision-making processes. Data visualization helps both patients and physicians to have a fuller understanding of the blood pressure 'story' and ultimately promotes the activated engaged patient and prepared proactive physician central to the Chronic Care Model. Both patients and physicians expressed concerns about workflow for entering and using home blood pressure data for clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: Our user-centered design process with physicians and patients produced a well-received blood pressure visualization prototype that includes home blood pressures and addresses patient-physician information needs. Next steps include evaluating a recent EHR visualization implementation, designing annotation functions aligned with users' needs, and addressing additional stakeholders' needs (nurses, care managers, caregivers). This significant innovation has potential to improve quality of care for hypertension through better patient-physician understanding of control and goals. It also has the potential to enable remote monitoring of patient blood pressure, a newly reimbursed activity, and is a strong addition to telehealth efforts.

Use of Enhanced Data Visualization to Improve Patient Judgments about Hypertension Control.

Objective. Uncontrolled hypertension is driven by clinical uncertainty around blood pressure data. This research sought to determine whether decision support-in the form of enhanced data visualization-could improve judgments about hypertension control. Methods. Participants (Internet sample of patients with hypertension) in 3 studies (N = 209) viewed graphs depicting blood pressure data for fictitious patients. For each graph, participants rated hypertension control, need for medication change, and perceived risk of heart attack and stroke. In study 3, participants also recalled the percentage of blood pressure measurements outside of the goal range. The graphs varied by systolic blood pressure mean and standard deviation, change in blood pressure values over time, and data visualization type. Results. In all 3 studies, data visualization type significantly affected judgments of hypertension control. In studies 1 and 2, perceived hypertension control was lower while perceived need for medication change and subjective perceptions of stroke and heart attack risk were higher for raw data displays compared with enhanced visualization that employed a smoothing function generated by the locally weighted smoothing algorithm. In general, perceptions of hypertension control were more closely aligned with clinical guidelines when data visualization included a smoothing function. However, conclusions were mixed when comparing tabular presentations of data to graphical presentations of data in study 3. Hypertension was perceived to be less well controlled when data were presented in a graph rather than a table, but recall was more accurate. Conclusion. Enhancing data visualization with the use of a smoothing function to minimize the variability present in raw blood pressure data significantly improved judgments about hypertension control. More research is needed to determine the contexts in which graphs are superior to data tables.

Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Predicts Patient Preferences for High- and Low-Benefit Care.

Purpose. People vary in their general preferences for more v. less health care, and the validated Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Scale (MMS) reliably measures this orientation. Medical maximizers (people scoring highly on the MMS) prefer to receive more health care visits, medications, tests, and treatments, whereas minimizers prefer fewer services. However, it is unclear how maximizing-minimizing preferences relate to willingness to pursue appropriate health care. We hypothesized that minimizers are at increased risk of rejecting evidence-based high-benefit care and that maximizers are at risk of wanting low-benefit care. Design. In total, 785 US adults recruited through an online panel expressed preferences to receive or forgo a health care intervention in 18 hypothetical scenarios. In 8 scenarios, the intervention was high benefit per evidence-based guidelines. In the remaining 10 scenarios, the intervention was low benefit. We assessed associations between participants' MMS score and their preferences for medical intervention in each scenario using regression analyses that adjusted for hypochondriasis, health risk tolerance, health status, and demographic variables. Results. MMS score was significantly associated with preferences in all 18 scenarios after adjusting for other variables. The MMS uniquely explained 11% of the variance in preferences for high-benefit care and 29% of the variance in preferences for low-benefit care. Differences between strong minimizers (10th percentile) and strong maximizers (90th percentile) across the 18 scenarios ranged from 5.6 to 32.3 points on a 1 to 100 preference scale. Conclusions. The MMS reliably predicts people's willingness to pursue appropriate care, both when appropriate care means taking high-benefit actions and when appropriate care means avoiding low-benefit actions. Targeting and tailoring messages according to maximizing-minimizing preferences might increase the effectiveness of both efforts to reduce overutilization of low-benefit services and campaigns to support uptake of high-benefit care.

Encouraging perspective taking: Using narrative writing to induce empathy for others engaging in negative health behaviors.

Societal expectations of self-care and responsible actions toward others may produce bias against those who engage in perceived self-harming behavior. This is especially true for health professionals, who have dedicated themselves to helping reduce the burden of illness and suffering. Research has shown that writing narratives can increase perspective taking and empathy toward other people, which may engender more positive attitudes. Two studies examined whether creating a fictional narrative about a woman who smokes cigarettes while pregnant could increase positive attitudes toward the woman who smokes and reduce the internal attributions made for her behavior. Across both experiments, the narrative writing intervention increased participants' empathy and perspective taking, evoked more positive attitudes toward a woman who smokes cigarettes while pregnant, and increased external attributions for her behavior. This work supports our hypothesis that narrative writing would be an efficacious intervention promoting attitude change toward patients who engage in unhealthy, and often contentious, behaviors. This work also suggests that narrative writing could be a useful intervention for medical professionals and policy makers leading to more informed policy or treatment recommendations, encouraging empathy for patients, and engendering a stronger consideration of how external forces can play a role in someone's seemingly irresponsible behavior.

Cross-Sectional Psychological and Demographic Associations of Zika Knowledge and Conspiracy Beliefs Before and After Local Zika Transmission.

Perceptions of infectious diseases are important predictors of whether people engage in disease-specific preventive behaviors. Having accurate beliefs about a given infectious disease has been found to be a necessary condition for engaging in appropriate preventive behaviors during an infectious disease outbreak, while endorsing conspiracy beliefs can inhibit preventive behaviors. Despite their seemingly opposing natures, knowledge and conspiracy beliefs may share some of the same psychological motivations, including a relationship with perceived risk and self-efficacy (i.e., control). The 2015-2016 Zika epidemic provided an opportunity to explore this. The current research provides some exploratory tests of this topic derived from two studies with similar measures, but different primary outcomes: one study that included knowledge of Zika as a key outcome and one that included conspiracy beliefs about Zika as a key outcome. Both studies involved cross-sectional data collections that occurred during the same two periods of the Zika outbreak: one data collection prior to the first cases of local Zika transmission in the United States (March-May 2016) and one just after the first cases of local transmission (July-August). Using ordinal logistic and linear regression analyses of data from two time points in both studies, the authors show an increase in relationship strength between greater perceived risk and self-efficacy with both increased knowledge and increased conspiracy beliefs after local Zika transmission in the United States. Although these results highlight that similar psychological motivations may lead to Zika knowledge and conspiracy beliefs, there was a divergence in demographic association.

Aiding Risk Information learning through Simulated Experience (ARISE): A Comparison of the Communication of Screening Test Information in Explicit and Simulated Experience Formats.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of Aiding Risk Information learning through Simulated Experience (ARISE) to communicate conditional probabilities about maternal serum screening results for Down syndrome promotes more accurate positive predictive value (PPV) estimates and conceptual understanding of screening, compared with explicitly providing individuals with this information via numerical summary or icon array. METHOD: In experiment 1, 582 participants completed an online study in which they were asked to estimate the PPV and rate their attitudes toward a screening test when information was presented in either a description (required calculation of the PPV), explicit (PPV was provided and had to be identified), or an ARISE format (PPV was inferred through experience-based learning). In experiment 2, 316 participants estimated the PPV and rated their attitudes toward screening based on information presented in either an icon array (identify the icons that represent the PPV) or ARISE format. RESULTS: In experiment 1, ARISE elicited the most accurate PPV estimates compared with the description and explicit formats, and both the explicit and ARISE formats led to more unfavorable attitudes toward screening. In experiment 2, both the icon array and ARISE resulted in similar PPV estimates; however, ARISE led to more negative attitudes toward screening. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that ARISE may be superior to other formats in the communication of PPV information for screening tests. However, differences in the complexity of the formats vary and require further investigation.

Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening.

PURPOSE: The recently developed Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS) assesses individual differences in preferences for active v. passive medical treatment. We hypothesized that men's maximizing-minimizing preferences might have relevance in the case of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, since there is considerable variability in men's preference for being screened even among men who are informed that harm is more likely than benefit. The current research examined whether MMS preferences predict how men respond to didactic information and narrative stories about PSA screening. DESIGN: US men 40+ years old ( N = 1208) participated in an online survey. Men viewed information about PSA screening in 3 phases and provided their preference for screening after each phase. Phase 1 described what PSA screening is. Phase 2 added didactic information about screening risks and benefits. Phase 3 added narrative stories; men were randomized to receive stories about 1) physical harm, 2) emotional harm, 3) overdiagnosis, or 4) all 3 stories. Participants also completed the validated MMS. RESULTS: After receiving basic information, 76.8% of men wanted PSA screening. After receiving information about risks and benefits, 54.8% wanted screening (a significant reduction, P < 0.001). Men who changed their preferences were significantly more likely to be minimizers than maximizers; most men with maximizing tendencies wanted screening after both the didactic information and narratives, whereas most men with minimizing tendencies did not want the test after receiving information. CONCLUSIONS: Men who prefer a more minimizing approach to medicine are more responsive to evidence supporting limiting or forgoing screening than men who prefer a maximizing approach.

On the Usefulness of Narratives: An Interdisciplinary Review and Theoretical Model.

Background: How can we use stories from other people to promote better health experiences, improve judgments about health, and increase the quality of medical decisions without introducing bias, systematically persuading the listeners to change their attitudes, or altering behaviors in nonoptimal ways? More practically, should narratives be used in health education, promotion, or behavior change interventions? Method: In this article, we address these questions by conducting a narrative review of a diverse body of literature on narratives from several disciplines to gain a better understanding about what narratives do, including their role in communication, engagement, recall, persuasion, and health behavior change. We also review broad theories about information processing and persuasion from psychology and more specific models about narrative messaging found in the health communication and marketing literatures to provide insight into the processes by which narratives have their effect on health behavior. Results: To address major gaps in our theoretical understanding about how narratives work and what effects they will have on health behavior, we propose the Narrative Immersion Model, whose goal is to identify the parameters that predict the specific impact of a particular narrative (e.g. persuade, inform, comfort, etc.) based on the type of narrative message (e.g. process, experience, or outcome narrative). Further, the Narrative Immersion Model describes the magnitude of the effect as increasing through successive layers of engagement with the narrative: interest, identification, and immersion. Finally, the Narrative Immersion Model identifies characteristics of the narrative intervention that encourage greater immersion within a given narrative. Conclusions: We believe there are important communication gaps in areas areas of behavioral medicine that could be addressed with narratives; however, more work is needed in order to employ narrative messaging systematically. The Narrative Immersion Model advances our theoretical understanding about narrative processing and its subsequent effects on knowledge, attitudes, and behavior.

Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PDAs) are evidence-based tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberated choices among healthcare options. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration review papers and Cochrane systematic review of PDAs have found significant gaps in the reporting of evaluations of PDAs, including poor or limited reporting of PDA content, development methods and delivery. This study sought to develop and reach consensus on reporting guidelines to improve the quality of publications evaluating PDAs. METHODS: An international workgroup, consisting of members from IPDAS Collaboration, followed established methods to develop reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies. This paper describes the results from three completed phases: (1) planning, (2) drafting and (3) consensus, which included a modified, two-stage, online international Delphi process. The work was conducted over 2 years with bimonthly conference calls and three in-person meetings. The workgroup used input from these phases to produce a final set of recommended items in the form of a checklist. RESULTS: The SUNDAE Checklist (Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations) includes 26 items recommended for studies reporting evaluations of PDAs. In the two-stage Delphi process, 117/143 (82%) experts from 14 countries completed round 1 and 96/117 (82%) completed round 2. Respondents reached a high level of consensus on the importance of the items and indicated strong willingness to use the items when reporting PDA studies. CONCLUSION: The SUNDAE Checklist will help ensure that reports of PDA evaluation studies are understandable, transparent and of high quality. A separate Explanation and Elaboration publication provides additional details to support use of the checklist.

What Is the Story with Narratives? How Using Narratives in Journalism Changes Health Behavior.

Health journalists frequently use narratives to bring news stories to life, with little understanding about how this influences the health behavior of readers. This study was designed to examine the effect of a New York Times health news article about a person who developed a life-threatening illness after using ibuprofen on readers' future use of ibuprofen. We recruited an Internet sample (N = 405) to participate in a longitudinal study examining ibuprofen use before, immediately following, and two weeks after reading the story. Ibuprofen use two-weeks after reading the heath news article was significantly lower than baseline use. Furthermore, intentions to use ibuprofen were also significantly reduced suggesting that the observed behavior change may persist beyond the two-week period studied. Health journalists should be cautious in their use of stories about health outcomes, particularly when those stories deviate from data about objective risks.

The role of the affect heuristic and cancer anxiety in responding to negative information about medical tests.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the affective implications of communicating negative information about medical tests. This research explored how affective processes - particularly the Affect Heuristic and cancer anxiety - influence the way in which people respond to such information. DESIGN: Participants received different types of information about PSA screening for prostate cancer and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for migraine headaches. This was a 2 (Test harm information: present vs. absent) × 2 (Test benefit information: present vs. absent) × 2 (Test recommendation: present vs. absent) between-participants design. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived risk, perceived benefit and general attitudes towards PSA and MRI testing, cancer anxiety, preferences to receive the tests vs. not. RESULTS: As predicted by the Affect Heuristic, test harm information reduced perceived test benefits. However, information about uncertain test benefit did not increase perceived test risks. Information about the test reduced cancer anxiety, indicating defensive coping. These variables - affect, anxiety, perceived risks and benefits - all uniquely predicted test preferences. CONCLUSION: Affective processes play an important role in how people respond to and interpret negative information about medical tests. Information about harms and information about the lack of benefit can both make a test seem less beneficial, and will reduce cancer anxiety as a result.